Assign a specific photo album to display on a Skylight device using its device ID and album ID, ensuring the chosen album appears on the screen.
Set which photo album a device displays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device id (from skylight_list_devices). | |
| frameId | No | ||
| current_album_id | Yes | Album id to display on this device. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / current_album_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / current_album_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds little behavioral context beyond the tool name itself, such as side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, or effects on existing display state. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable, though it could have used the space slightly better to document more behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating device-album operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description leaves ambiguity around frameId and gives no usage guidance. The core operation is clear, but the description is too thin to be fully complete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%: id and current_album_id have descriptions, and the description mostly restates those meanings without adding new meaning. The optional frameId parameter remains completely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for that gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Set which photo album a device displays.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from album-related siblings like update_album or create_album. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the phrasing makes the device-display focus is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_album, add_to_album, or set_default_calendar. The description implies usage by describing the operation, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.